Quick Review: Apple iPhone 5 Camera

Low light

Apple claims that the iPhone 5 offers improved low-light performance compared to the 4S. It certainly offers a more twilight-friendly ISO span, up to ISO 3200, compared to a maximum of ISO 1000 in the 4S. Let's take a detailed look.

This scene was lit with a single tungsten bulb. Focus was set manually (by touch) from the bauble in the center of the image. All three phones selected an ISO sensitivity of 800.

Click on the thumbnails below for the full-sized original images.

iPhone 5 (100% crop - high contrast )

iPhone 5 (100% crop - midtone)

iPhone 4S (100% crop - high contrast )

iPhone 4S (100% crop - midtone)

iPhone 4 (100% crop - high contrast )

iPhone 4 (100% crop - midtone)

The camera modules of the 4S and 5 are different, but it seems likely that they're based on similar underlying hardware. The iPhone 5 is certainly applying more noise-reduction to areas of plain tone than the 4S, but up to ISO 1600, there's very little difference between the two cameras.

The iPhone 5's trump card in poor light, compared to the 4S, is its additional ISO sensitivity span, which goes up to ISO 3200 (automatically - you can't control ISO manually). To get the iPhone 5 to shoot at its very highest ISO sensitivity settings, the light has to be extremely low. For the examples below, we moved our single tungsten light progressively further away from our still life, decreasing the amount of light falling on the scene.

iPhone 5, ISO 800

100% Crop

iPhone 5, ISO 2000

100% Crop

iPhone 5, ISO 3200

100% Crop

Well, there we have it. The iPhone 5's sensor isn't magically more sensitive than its predecessor after all. There have been rumors of pixel-binning and multi-shot noise reduction at play in the iPhone 5, and based on what we've seen, it does look like the iPhone 5 employs some sort of pixel-binning at its highest ISO sensitivities, and upsizes the resulting images to 3264x2448 pixels (8MP). Notice how sharpness drops significantly between ISO 800 and ISO 2000. This appears to be more than just increased noise and more aggressive noise-reduction.

Try as we might, we couldn't get the iPhone 5 to select ISO 1600 when capturing this scene, but in supplemental shooting we've established that the switch occurs between ISO 1000 and ISO 1250. Images captured at ISO 1000 are noisy but sharp, and images at ISO 1250 and above are smoother, brighter, but much less detailed, suggesting a loss of true resolution (rather than just a masking of detail, caused by noise and NR).

This isn't a bad thing though. Although we'd love DSLR-level high ISO performance in a cameraphone, it's an unrealistic expectation. By combining the signals of neighboring photosites in this way, the iPhone can capture images in light much lower than its predecessor the iPhone 4S, and the drop in pixel-level image quality will probably be unnoticeable when the images are used for social and web use.

Interestingly, right now this 'boost' mode is not available when running third-party camera applications on the iPhone 5. But according to a recent report, app developers will have the option of activating it if they desire, and it is likely that the next round of updates to popular apps like Camera+ and Instagram will be able to take advantage of the new high-sensitivity mode in the near future.

Flash shot

Camera phones are not well known for their flash capability. Some have real xenon flash strobes, but most are nothing more than a very bright LED. The iPhone 4, 4S and 5 all feature LED flashes, and while none can match the flashes of even cheap compact cameras for output power, they can come in handy for close-range social portraits.

This LED flash test was taken in very low artificial light with the main source of light coming from the camera flash.

We shot these images hand-held and slight motion blur is evident, but sharpness on our subject's face is acceptable from all three phones.

iPhone 5 (100% crop - detail) ISO 80

iPhone 5 (100% crop - color chart)

iPhone 4S (100% crop - detail) ISO 80

iPhone 4S (100% crop - color chart)

iPhone 4 (100% crop - detail) ISO 250

iPhone 4 (100% crop - color chart)

Looking at the crops of our subject's eye it is easy to see the affect of the iPhone 5's more aggressive noise reduction. The eyebrows and lashes are ever so slightly less well defined. Red eye is something that plagues all 3 cameras equally and in the default Apple camera app there is no option for red eye reduction. There is however a fairly decent red eye removal function available via the Edit options dialog on the iPhone.

For both the iPhone 5 and 4s the camera chose an ISO setting of 80. However the 4 chose a much higher ISO of 250 while keeping the same shutter speed as the other 2 cameras (~1/15s) which has resulted in a brighter image for the iPhone 4. As a consequence, the iPhone 4 has given a noisier image, but the moderate grittiness is not objectionable.

I found Apple's response to this issue quite funny -- because it's true! They're telling people to do what Barney recommends here: "Really, our advice is not to worry. Just do what you should do anyway, and avoid putting bright lights near the edge of the frame when shooting."

It's not an opinion. Leave a sensor pointing at the sun for any length of time and you run serious risk or ruining the sensor.The same thing can happen to your eyes.Also, do not point a laser, even low powered, into the sensor, or your eyes.

The flare explanation is not necessary correct to me. Flare usually causes two kinds of artifacts. One is adding haziness to the whole image. The other is creating artifacts alike the ghost of lens' shape. Neither applied to iphone 5 purple images. Flare won't turn blue into purple. Purple means lack of green, which is closely related to luminance channel. If you check the purple haze of the images reported on CNN. The purple pixels are about [255 150 255] in sRGB space. So the luminance channel is somehow not preserved in final output image. Given purple haze happens at over-exposed area, it's odd that green channel is the lowest, while the B/R are saturated. I suspect there can be a bug in iphone 5 's camera image signal processing pipeline / algorithms. There might be something related to inappropriate handling of signal range during image processing that causes unwanted signal clipping.

Excuse my ignorance, but can anyone explain pixel binning and ISO in more detail?

As I understand it, ISO in a digital camera is the sensitivity of the sensor to light. So if the iPhone 5 sensor is not any more sensitive to light than the 4S, how does it achieve a higher ISO with pixel binning?

As I understand it, pixel binning is a software feature that combines adjacent pixels as if they were one larger pixel. A pixel of any given size has a dynamic range largely dependant upon the size of the pixel so, if three adjacent pixels are combined with a single pixel to form one of an equivalent 4x the area, the dynamic range is enhanced and with the potential for a corresponding reduction in digital noise.

In theory, then, this larger "pixel" should exhibit less noise and therefore a higher ISO setting should be possible for a given noise threshold.

"Binning" therefore does not mean the pixels are discarded, but it does reduce the resolution. In my example, if a 2x2 array of pixels are combined on a 16 megapixel sensor, the "effective" resolution becomes 4 megapixels. So the "binning" refers more to the loss of 12meg of resolution as the trade off for higher dynamic range and less noise.

SD card reader (adapter). Organizer (check out 'Photo Manager Pro'). ExifRemover. There are pretty good remote control apps for Canon and Nikon DSLRs. Have your viewfinder on an iPad!

Connect and simultaneously record from up to EIGHT devices linked over WiFi (app "Video Camera"). The iPad can be used as a pretty good softbox. Have a look at 'SoftBox Pro für iPad'. ‘Action Movie FX’.

Great review- thanks! As an owner of the iPhone 4s and previous owner of a Nikon D70, I can honestly say that the best things about this cameraphone are the optical quality of the camera and the versitility brought about via the many apps for shooting photos and videos. I've been using the camera to take photos through my 20-60x spotting scope (a process called Digiscoping), have been shooting video in slow motion (using the SloPro app), adding peripheral microphones for professional-level audio (via the awesome FiRe field recording app and an assortment of mics ranging from the Fostex AR-4i cradle to a modified miniplug adapter and a Sennheiser shotgun mic), and the list goes on. You can see some of my first digiscoping results in a quick write-up I put together here:http://www.woodcreeper.com/2012/09/18/the-new-kowa-iphone-digiscoping-adapter/

Because there is approx 10,000,000,000 models of samsung phones that, in aggregate, are more popular then the 1 iPhone model. Plus people who use the samsung phones tend to be less social and more geeky, less likely to use flikr and other sites like it.

I wonder how the HDR settings were set during the test. I have found that the flare character is completely different with the HDR setting off. What you have shown is consistent, in my experience, with HDR on. With HDR off you can expose correctly on the darker area with little flare or correctly on the bright end with a petal shaped flare.Using ProHDR, the flare is different again, but not entirely attractive either.

It may be worth examining this more thoroughly than I have and deciding whether to include it in an edit of the review.

And, for what it's worth, I think a review of one of the most widely used cameras is as valid a function of DPReview as reviewing a Leica M9, that only 4 real people can afford, and whom are unlikely to be affected in their decision by reading the site for its opinion....;-)

I would argue that it does. 99.99% of people using this phone to snap pics could not care less about sensor size or focal length or aperture (and BTW, aperture is 2.4). Why would they? How does that impact their snapshots? Only a really serious photographer would care, and what kind of serious photographer would be using a cell phone in such a way anyway? That isn't what it's designed for.

I totally fail to understand why you think that's what the reviewer is saying.

I'm looking at the first images, and I'm seeing effectively the same image with a little more smoothing in the 5 vs 4S, and a slightly more yellowish tinge to the overall photo.

The second images are also effectively the same deal: More smoothing on the 5 vs 4S.

If you're spotting these issues and complaining, it's pretty obvious that you've ignored the conclusion where the authors effectively state, "They use the same sensor, but the iPhone 5 gets one that's been binned to handle higher ISO, and there's more smoothing going on." I read that as, "It's a good camera when you consider that it comes attached to a phone."

By the way, you're getting worked up over a camera that's attached to a phone. I'm not buying a smartphone based on it's optical performance, and few people in their right mind would. Would you buy the Nokia Pure 808 for the camera? I hope not, because it's a terrible phone.

Well, I for one have replaced my iPhone 4s with a Nokia 808 Pureview 2 months ago and have never looked back. I am very happy with 808's performance as a phone. Certainly way better than the iPhone 4S in some key phone aspects for me (ie call quality, signal reception, battery life, Maps and GPS). On the camera front, the 808 blows the iPhone out of the water, both for stills and hd videos. Definitely it is an acquired taste UX wise, but easy to get used to. But if apps is your thing more than mobile photography or long lasting battery to power phone functions, than an iPhone or any android device is better suited.

That might be because the iPhone weighs less than the Nokia and thus causes less damage when it falls on your head. Or it might be because the font size in the manual is bigger. Or it might be because the video record button is easier to press for people with Parkinson's. Or it might be because of some other obscure reason. When it comes to new tech, Stiftung Warentest is far from being the place to refer to nowadays. They know about refrigerators and lawn-mowers and they should stick to that.

Btw their tests are behind a paywall, so no useful links are available. Plus their tests don't even make it on the net illegally, this is how bad Stiftung Warentest has become :)

Just put Nokia's N8 or 808 samples next to it, just a different league I d say. Comparisons have been posted on the internet many times. iPhone is not about the camera, it is about the package. The two Nokia's are not about the package, they are about the camera.

It's tough to say... The iPhone 4S had a linear vibration motor which would cause motion along the axis of the lens resulting in less motion blur caused by camera movement across the frame than the rotational vibrator in the iPhone 5. However, this is just speculation.

Stop this crap about "what about this phone or that " no one owns those phones ! They suck , just fact .. no one unless they are trying to make a bigger the statement of how anti-apple they are .,so DP is doing the rt thing by reviewing I-phone to I-phone ... And the douchetard that said a point and shoot is cheaper and better , c'mon man stop that crap to cause labor camp comment disqualified any of ur other ignorant statements .. The IPhone like it or not is changing photography as an art and is the death bell of ur cheap point and shoot cameras ...that is not a pipe dream it's a fact

Nikon users are busy comparing ISO25600 shots of a brick walls.Sony users are minority, and there are no Pentax users what so ever. If you ever seen a Pentax user - it was a ghost of a long-dead system user.

Dear dpreview, Good review, can't wait to own one, I don't see the point making comparison with other phones e.g. Galaxy S3, or others in this forum, unless dpreview make a new category like " dpreview mobile phone " where u guys talk about camera phones only. I think the word " camera " means a lot of things nowadays. .......

As much as I love Apple, unless there's a major breakthrough announced, I would rather see other cameras being tested, SLRs or compact.

Flickr uploads is a very bad gauge of shutter frequency per camera or duration of camera on the hand of their users. SLR users tend to upload only a select few of a day's shoot, or outing. iPhone uploads tend to be massive, without filtering, like 2 photos of every plate they ordered that dinner, or a sequence of their kids that's close enough to be animated in gifs. So the volume upload does not speak of users and their shutter presses, or time spent handing the camera.

One thing that'd be interested in this when you get a chance to expand on this and perhaps bring in the Androids is what effect the screen has on the viewing of images. In a portable space, these photos are often shared and viewed right on the phones and the screen has an impact. I've been pulling photos from the DSLR, processing them on LR on a calibrated screen and then when shared on the iPhone 4S (or older iPad) they look ... most un-goodest.

I know this doesn't directly affect the camera, but I think most phone users view the photos on the device. I'm guessing that even if the photo from the 4S and 5 are identical from the camera they look better on the 5's screen.

The camera world has changed. The viewing of images in Albums on the iPad and at Flickr and similar sites has overtaken the old family photo album. The 8 by 10 inch print for a photo frame is no longer a test of a family cameras competence. If the Smartphone camera is a bit slow for action, then turn on the video on the Smartphone for the magic moments. These are the facts of life for family photography in the digital age of converged devices.

And the web is replacing colour print magazines with lower quality images at 72 rather than 300 dpi suitable; indeed 72 dpi is the standard. Location opportunity will continue to produce the best images for 24 hour news on the web.

Another area where the Smartphone camera is proving a winner is the capture of images alongside text for business use in home inspections, asset tracking, safety audits and many other applications. Check out Mobile Data Studio for that use at http://www.creativitycorp.com

Megaresp makes a valid point re viewing of images on Smartphones and Tablets. Increasingly the images are both being captured on a Smartphone and viewed on somebody elses Smartphone or Tablet. Either direct or via web pages. For most such viewing the mobile device screen is relatively small, between 3.5 and 10 inch. Thus both dpi and 'pixel peeping' detail are irrelevant for most digital imaging in a mobile world.

The main point in my initial comment relates to the practical business use of cameras in Smartphones to capture images alongside other business-related data for reports. They work well with software that combines the two.

As a 'gadgeteer', I should add that recreationally I currently enjoy Canon G1X and Canon S100, and also have DSLRs. But either the iPhone 4S or Galaxy Note is always in my pocket. I look forward to testing the new Samsung Galaxy Camera (run in Android 4.1) with Mobile Data Studio.

It's pretty clever, we have to assume it's pixel binning of some kind. Definitely the most usable binned output I can remember seeing though, and the IQ is good enough for web/social use, which is the point.

Two points here - firstly, you know how small the team here is. We can't review everything. Actually, our review remit is much wider now than it was, but still, we can't hope to get everything covered.

Secondly, if for whatever reason we haven't reviewed something almost a year after it's been reviewed, there's very little point in reviewing it. We'd serve everyone better by reviewing the next version. Sometimes we won't be able to, but that's life. See point 1, above ;)

It's also worth pointing out that reviewing the number one source of photographic images on many major websites is more relevant than reviewing another of the many iterations of p/s cameras even if the iPhone 5 offers inferior image quality—which, clearly, it does. The thing sold 5 million copies in less than a week!

jcmarfilph Why woul'd you wanna read reviews of cameras you obviously already own (according to your gear list)? I mean, you already bought them and used them, you must have formed an oppinion of your own by now?You wan't to know if you made the right choice or what? If you're happy with your cameras, why do you care about an unwritten review?So many questions.. :)

You don't understand there being some merit in reviewing the most popular 'camera' available at this point in time? (Based on the Flickr figures)?

Maybe because to address misconceptions that phones are 'crippled wannabee' cameras?

An iPhone isn't a superzoom, in the same way a superzoom isn't an SLR with pro glass.

Get over it and stop asking for reviews on obsolete camera models in a segment of the industry that the is diminishing because through improvements in technology, camera phones are growing in popularity.

It's not the camera I want per se but other more important and real camera that they should be reviewing. 3 days is too much to spend for a device like this. I bet it will not take an hour or two to do a side-by-side comparison of the recent superzoom cameras.

That´s because DPreview has lost their nimbus in being the no.1 camera review site some time ago. If you want to read reviews of real cameras without every 2nd article being about a smartphone or other not really photography related devices you have to look elsewhere. There were times when I could check DPreview about most cameras I considered buying but today they review only a minor fraction of them. That´s sad. So I rather look elsewhere. Competition isn´t sleeping, there are a lot of photography review sites that stick to real cameras, doing a lot of reviews that are better than DPreviews ones. One of them is run by only one man who has done more reviews than big DPreview with their team of 14 people. Strange, not?

Barney,I always enjoy reading your reviews and this one was in perfect time as I should have my iphone5 delivered tomorrow. Thank you for the comprehensive review and samples.

While the iphone may not take top honors in the camera department right now, the samples are certainly nothing to laugh about. I can't think of another camera thats a little over a quarter inch thick, has an ISO range of 50-3200, has touchscreen controls with tap to focus, weighs a few ounces and gives you countless options to edit photos and videos and then post them online or send them to anyone in the world...oh, and its a phone too! Truly an amazing time we live in.

I know it's been touched on with the iPad but I would love to see a review of some of the editing options focused specifically on iphone users running iOS6.

Dear Barney,I am sorry you had to explain again that the accessory reviews are done by someone else, I didn't follow that close enough to know.But this time your name is on the top of the reveiw and again I wonder why a phone camera (!!!) gets reviewed 1 week from its being released while there are 25 previews waiting. I know, I don't pay anything for this site (not directly but with my visit you generate page views you sell), but still, as a regular visitor since 2002 I at least take the liberty to point it out.I remember a time when compacts were out of the question and the site concentrated on the highest tier of cameras, now it's the IPhone, as popular as it may be.Just my 2 cents.

I worked on this with our studio manager, Kelcey, partly over a weekend.

The reason there are so many previews waiting to be turned into reviews is primarily that we have very few reviewable cameras, yet (we don't review pre-production models). The production cameras that we have (Nikon D600 being a notable example) are being worked on. In fact, I published an update to that preview only a couple of days ago.

Well obviously there are many new anouncments but what about the likes of Pana GF5, G5, LX7, Sony Alpha 37 or Fuji X-PRO1? They are all available. Is the world's foremost site really unable to get those from the manufacturer or its parent amazon (which was said to be able to provide cameras faster back when Phil sold out)? Or, if eveything else fails, you could just go out and buy it, then sell it after the fact.

Ah, you've got all the solutions, haven't you, George? You're an ideas man. You missed something though - we did review the X-Pro 1, quite some time ago. We'll have an LX7 review ready very soon, and I'd love to review the other cameras that you mentioned. But we might not be able to. We can't do everything. Reviews take a huge amount of effort and we're a small team. Everyone has a pet camera that they want to see reviewed, sometimes they're disappointed. But we'll do all we can - as always.

@hiro_pro - no, we've never done that. We've had to put reviews on extended hiatus when serious issues have come to light (the Fujifilm X10 review, for example, when Fuji committed, belatedly, to a sensor replacement program that took months) but we've never started a review and then stopped because we were uninspired.

We're working on a more in-depth and rounded review of the iPhone in the context of the marketplace. We fully intend to cover the panorama mode in that. There are some samples in the gallery attached to this review, too.